DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “interface device” and “drive unit” in claim 1; “one or more components” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the interface device is formed by the construction machine to be refueled and/or the mobile hydrogen refueling station and/or a dispenser unit or vehicle” is indefinite, since the claim defines the interface device being capable of connecting to the construction machine, etc…
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the hydrogen refueling station’s power grid" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the hydrogen container(s)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johansen et al. (WO 2023/282764; cited prior art).
Regarding claim 1, the Johansen et al. reference discloses an interface device (23, 24), which is capable of being connected to a construction machine (1) to be refueled, on the one hand, and optionally to a mobile hydrogen refueling station, on the other, or forms a component thereof, wherein the interface device comprises:
a drive unit (25, compressor) or a power transducer (22; Figure 3) designed to provide the drive power for transferring hydrogen from the mobile hydrogen refueling station (2; resupply unit) to the construction machine to be refueled and wherein the interface device is formed by the construction machine to be refueled and/or the mobile hydrogen refueling station and/or a dispenser unit or vehicle, which is designed to supply the mobile hydrogen refueling station and/or the construction machine with the drive power.
Further, “and/or” is being construed as “or”.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the interface device is designed to provide electrical control power (via 24) for the power supply of the hydrogen refueling station's power grid. See Paragraph [0035].
Regarding claim 3, wherein the interface device has means for transmitting data from and/or between the construction machine and/or the mobile hydrogen refueling station. See Paragraph [0035].
Regarding claim 4, wherein the drive unit (25) is designed to provide the drive power by means of hydraulic power, electrical power, pneumatic power or mechanical power. The compressor (25) is electrically driven (para. 0032).
Regarding claim 7, the interface device transfers hydrogen via pipe (23) and compressor (25).
Regarding claims 9, interface device (23) has manually actuated mechanism (29).
Regarding claim 11, the Johansen et al. reference discloses the interface device (23, 24) being connected to a construction machine (1) and a mobile hydrogen refueling station (2). See Figure 1.
Regarding claim 13, interface device (23) has manually actuated mechanism (29). Further, “and/or” is being construed as “or”.
Regarding claim 14, the Johansen et al. reference discloses a system (Figure 1) and a vehicle (1) to be refueled and a mobile hydrogen refueling station (2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansen et al. in view of Strnad, Jr. (6003568).
Regarding claims 6 and 10, the Johansen et al. reference discloses the invention (discussed) supra, but doesn’t disclose automatically activating the parking brake (as a safety component) of a vehicle connected to the interface device. The Strnad reference discloses another vehicle refueling device having an electric actuator to apply the parking brake when a fuel door is actuated (see col. 2, lines 46 – 62). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Johansen et al. device to have the parking brake activating system defined above as, for example, taught by the Strnad reference in order to ensure the vehicle being refueled has the parking brake engaged.
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansen et al. in view of Nishigai (10263428).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, the Johansen et al. reference discloses the invention (discussed) supra, but doesn’t disclose wherein the interface device has a power transducer, which is designed to absorb energy from an external energy source and, if necessary, makes this power available for hydrogen transfer after a transformation to a different voltage level, wherein the interface device has a power transducer, which is designed to receive electrical energy from an external energy source and, if necessary, makes this electrical power available for hydrogen transfer after a transformation to a different voltage level. The Nishigai reference discloses a power conversion apparatus having voltage transducers (3a-3e) to step up or stepdown DC output power/input power to a storage battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Johansen et al. device to have a power transducer as, for example, taught by the Nishigai reference in order to control voltage level of the power.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansen et al. in view of McKay et al. (9725295).
Regarding claim 8, the Johansen et al. reference discloses the invention (discussed) supra, but doesn’t disclose wherein the interface device is designed to simultaneously fill hydrogen containers of the vehicle. The McKay et al. reference discloses another mobile refueling device (Figure 1) having an interface device (16, 18 and 40) to allow the system to supply fuel through multiple fuel lines (20) to multiple tanks (32) of vehicles (30) to keep the vehicles in continuous operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Johansen et al. device to have simultaneous filling of multiple tanks as, for example, taught by the McKay et al. reference in order to keep vehicles in continuous operation and decreasing time of refueling.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Kalala et al. (9815683) reference discloses a mobile refueling device (Figure 2) having an interface, multiple refuelers and electronic stop failsafe.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY LEWIS MAUST whose telephone number is (571)272-4891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIMOTHY L MAUST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753